At the end of last month, the Montgomery County Council voted unanimously to approve a new Bicycle Master Plan. It calls for more than 1,000 miles of trails, paths, and separated bike lanes; expanded bicycle parking near transit and in commercial areas; and bicycle-supportive programs and policies.

“This plan raises the bar for bicycle infrastructure planning and design in North America,” Planning Board Chair Casey Anderson said in a press release. “It positions Montgomery County to be among the leading bicycling communities in the country.”

More than a quarter of these bike paths and trails already exist, and the county would build them out futher over the next 25 years. One of the goals of the plan is to prove that great biking isn't just limited to cities and urban areas. The improved bicycle infrastructure should also help the county with its Vision Zero goals.

This plan also places a larger emphasis on biking for transportation—rather than recreation—than previous ones did. About half of the county's trips are under 3.5 miles, and many of the commute trips are to Metrorail and MARC stations. Planners see this as an opportunity to capture a larger percentage of those trips by bicycle.

The Bicycle Master Plan is a comprehensive overhaul of the 1978 Master Plan of Bikeways, 2005 Countywide Bikeways Functional Master Plan, and all bikeway recommendations in past master and sector plans. It represents a paradigm shift in both the way the county views biking and in the way bike facilities are planned, designed, and built.

Planners first evaluated the stress level of every road and facility in the county and determined that 14% of potential bicycling trips can be made on a low-stress bicycling network. This plan aims to increase the mea­sure of low-stress connectivity to 55% by 2043.

Utilizing the county's stress map, they defined an 1,100-mile network of bikeways includes 573 miles of sidepaths, 172 miles of trails, 128 miles of bikeable shoulders, 99 miles of separated bike lanes and 48 miles of neighborhood greenways. This would more than triple the current system. (For some reference, BikeArlington says the county about 50 miles of bike trails, and Prince George's has 85 miles of multi-use trails.)

It also calls for more bike parking, a standardized design toolkit, more outreach, new ways of measuring bicycle demand, regular reporting and bicycle-supportive programs, and a legal and policy framework.

The plan represents a shift in the kinds of facilities intended for cyclists. Gone are wide outside lanes and “Share the Road” signs. In their place are facilities intended for, or primarily for, cyclists and other types of active transportation. Cyclists will eventually find bicycle parking stations at every Red Line Metro Station and at high-demand MARC, Purple Line, and CCT stations.

Planners have called for creating innovative “breezeways,” which are high-capacity routes of arterial bikeways between major activity centers such as Rockville and Friendship Heights. These breezeways, built in the same corridors as highways, railroads and utility lines, will form the backbone of intra-county active transportation.

Now here comes the hard part—funding

Bike advocates have expressed concern about the sidepaths and said they prefer protected bike lanes, but planners countered that the kinds of sidepaths they have in mind will be of much higher quality than the kind built in the past.

Some advocates are also concerned that the plan doesn't adequately support biking to school, particularly for elementary and middle school-age students. Planners point out that few schools have “bicycle connectivity” on paper because the standard is so high. For example, neighborhood sidewalks are not considered bikeable by children, and many schools sit alongside high-speed roads that wouldn't be considered safe even with bike lanes.

The plan will be updated to include revisions from the County Council it received on November 27, 2018. They will be posted as the Approved and Adopted Bicycle Master Plan by Spring 2019. Then the task becomes one of funding it.

The fiscal impact statement set the total cost of the 25-year plan at $3.1 billion, which doesn't consider “substantial” land acquisition costs. Many of these facilites are unfunded lines on a map, and that may be how some of them remain.

Developers are expected to pay around $500 million for work over the years. Another $1.8 billion represents dual-use facilites, such as bikeable shoulders which are also highway safety improvements, that would be done in conjunction with other projects.

Finding the money to fund these projects—and making sure that state and federal projects include the faciliites laid out in the plan—will be critical to achieving its goals.

The county hopes to create a transportation network that connects the county with convenient and low-stress bicycling routes, encourages more people to bicycle, provides equal access to low-stress bicycling for all members of the community, and improves safety for cyclists. It's a noble vision—the hard work will be making that vision a reality.

The super-Washington region, including DC, Baltimore, and Richmond, should improve the MARC and VRE rail systems including running service through DC. It should finish networks of trails and try congestion pricing in DC and adjacent parts of Arlington. It should improve bus service, promote employer incentives to not drive alone, increase equity, do more with technology, and better fund and govern transportation in the region.

The Partnership, founded two years ago, includes 22 CEOs and is led by financier Russ Ramsey, businessman and sports team owner Ted Leonsis, and banking executive Peter Scher. They worked together on the region's bid for the Olympics, and when that fell apart, created a new organization to help the greater “Capital Region,” from Baltimore to Richmond, be more globally competitive.

Transportation is one of the key issues the Partnership decided to take on; it has released a number of specific issue briefs and the work is culminating in this Blueprint, led by Partnership staff, Thomas Farrell of Dominion Energy, EY's Mark Weinberger, and Kenneth Samet of MedStar.

DC Sustainable Transportation has been working with the Partnership on many of our transportation efforts, and gave feedback throughout the development of this blueprint. Greater Greater Washington's Editorial Board and Advocacy Committee got a look and decided to sign on to a letter of support as well.

We think the recommendations in the Blueprint are, on the whole, the kind of bold and forward-thinking ideas we need to get people moving as our region grows. Our committees disagree specifically with one item and also wanted to point out some areas we hope the region will push on beyond what's in this ambitious document.

To be honest, I was nervous when I first heard this group of CEOs were pushing for big ideas on transportation. Would they just end up recommending ideas like an Outer Beltway/new Potomac River highway bridge, a bad idea that keeps coming back because it has intuitive appeal for people driving despite analyses that say it won't help? Or would they be distracted by shiny vaporware ideas like the hyperloop, which is still mostly hype and not much loop? The answer: No. The Outer Beltway is not in the Blueprint, nor is hyperloop, and this document is far from ignorant. Quite the opposite.

Priorities, Solutions, and Actions

The Blueprint is structured around four Priorities, seven big Solutions, and within each Solution, a set of Actions.

Here are the Priorities that undergird the Partnership's approach to transportation (things in quotes are their words; others are paraphrases):

”Connect the Super-Region”: Get people between the Baltimore, Washington, and Richmond metro areas.

”Improve the Consumer Experience”: Get people around better, faster, more reliably, more conveniently, etc.

There are already trains between the major cities of the super-region. Some people commute on them, but they could serve so many more people if they were faster, more frequent, and reliable. State governments wring their hands over traffic on I-95 and the BW Parkway; better train service is a great approach.

The obstacles to more and better train service lie in a few choke points which need replacing: the Long Bridge over the Potomac, Union Station, the B&P tunnel in Baltimore, and limited platforms at BWI. The Blueprint recommends steps for the state governments, Congressional delegations, Amtrak, and others to get things moving on these priorities. It also recomemends creating redevelopment compacts for Union Station, Baltimore Penn Station, and Staples Mill station in Richmond.

When the Long Bridge and Union Station projects are done, two of the biggest hurdles to integrating MARC and VRE service will have fallen. Connecting the two into an integrated commuter rail system, or at least sending MARC trains to Alexandria, has long been a good idea and is even more so now with Amazon in Crystal City. The Blueprint recommends the Council of Governments (COG) and the states do a feasibility study and MARC and VRE start coordinating any purchases of new equipment now with this end in mind.

What GGWash committees think: This is all much needed. We'd also like to see a focus on Richmond's Main Street station and the tracks to get there. Trains often face delays getting into downtown Richmond, but it's important to have good service there to support walkable urbanism and transit-oriented development in Richmond.

More reliable roads and trails

The Blueprint doesn't recommend criss-crossing the region with new highways. Instead, it focuses on making our road system work better, and also building and connecting bike and walking trails.

It recommends a network of “performance-driven tolling” lanes, like the ones already around the region which charge single-passenger vehicles but not carpools. The Partnership previously created a set of principles for such lanes, much of which makes sense, like using revenues not just on the road in question but for travel generally, including transit; ensuring equity; and focusing on moving people, not vehicles.

Tolling makes sense as a way to manage road capacity. But if it's used as a way to add more highway lanes and move more cars, that's counterproductive to helping the region grow sustainably. Like Maryland Governor Larry Hogan's plans to toll and widen the Beltway, I-270, and BW Parkway, which the Blueprint endorses and we don't.

There's another good tolling-oriented big idea in the Blueprint: congestion pricing. The Blueprint suggests DC, Virginia, and COG study the potential for congestion pricing, which would put a price on driving in a set zone, perhaps just downtown DC or perhaps larger, like one including the future Amazon areas or others in Arlington. This is already part of DC's MoveDC plan and the Sustainable DC plan. And it might be the only way to keep traffic from increasing with growing use of Uber and Lyft and, in the future, autonomous vehicles.

The third idea in this section is trail networks in each of the cities. Baltimore and DC have trail network plans, and the straightforward Blueprint recommendation is to implement them. Richmond, on the other hand, needs to create a trail network plan and then build it.

What GGWash committees think: Two thumbs up to congestion pricing and trails. There's a lot good in the “performance-driven tolling” brief, but we don't agree with the way the document endorses Hogan's widening projects. This is the one major piece of the Blueprint we disagree with. Also, while the Blueprint says funding from the Hogan projects should contribute to the American Legion Bridge and adding transit, but that might mean widening the bridge. A better statement would ensure that all of the revenue fund projects, including bike/ped projects, that reduce car dependence.

Better, more integrated transit

Since the first section already covered regional rail, this transit section takes each of the three sub-regions individually. This is restating a lot of what the Partnership had previously recommended in a “Rethinking the Bus” brief.

Baltimore quite simply needs a lot more transit and a regional plan for it. The Blueprint recommends that, and also asks the MTA to report more information like on-time performance for each route and time of the day.

Richmond also needs more transit, particularly to the surrounding counties which have low transit accessibility, the Blueprint says.

For Washington, there are already buses to most parts of the region. The challenge in Washington is to better integrate all of the region's bus providers and implement bus priority corridors with dedicated lanes and other treatments to speed up buses.

What GGWash committees think: These are good ideas. The main suggestions we have are around transit ideas not listed in this document. It's understandable that with many CEOs who need to sign off, perhaps some transit ideas got consensus and some need more discussion. There's lots of transit here, and this doesn't have to be exhaustive. Still, it's notable that Metro doesn't appear in this section; we feel that ensuring a healthy Metro is an absolute must. More statements about repurposing surface travel lanes for bus or light rail, beyond the ones that are already in existing plans, would also be valuable.

Employer commute programs

It doesn't get as much attention as flashy infrastructure like roads and rails, but employers can do a lot (or not do a lot) to help people find and use alternatives to driving alone. This is called Transportation Demand Management, and some jurisdictions, like Arlington, do a lot to encourage employers along these lines. The Blueprint suggests doing more of it.

For instance, it says, the super-region gained 200,000 jobs from 2013 to 2016 but about 70% of them involved driving alone, adding 153,000 car commutes to area roads. Meanwhile, downtown Seattle added 60,000 jobs from 2010 to 2017 but actually reduced car commutes by 4,500. (Arlington says it, too, has kept traffic from increasing as its population has grown, thanks to many of these measures).

The Blueprint enumerates five “core employer mobility programs” and a larger set of “innovative mobility programs.” The Partnership wants to create a “challenge” to ask all employers to implement all five of the “core” programs and at least two of the “innovative” ones. Also, area governments and COG could set metrics and do region-wide surveys to track the impact of TDM measures.

It also says many employers find it cumbersome to take advantage of public benefit programs, which could be streamlined. And transit and bikeshare agencies could offer bulk purchases at a discount (like the Metro U-Pass available to American University students).

What GGWash volunteers think: These are good. Showers are also important along with secure bike parking to encourage cycling. The “innovative” items around parking, like charging for parking or cash-outs, ideally would be measures all employers take. As structured, the “innovative” list includes some really mode-altering ones, and some, like having a coordinator, which are a good idea (and who knows, maybe have a really big impact!) but are also a lighter touch.

Equity in transportation

The Partnership convened a group of organizations to explore policies to reduce or eliminate historical inequities in transportation. This included people from Morgan State University, the Local Initiatives Support Corporation, UMD, the Richmond City Council, Transportation for America, the Annie E. Casey Foundation, AFL-CIO, Howard University, Brookings, and Urban Institute. The group settled on two specific recommendations.

The first is to expand preferences for contractors who hire “local residents, veterans, or unemployed community members.” Some area jurisdictions and agencies allow such preferences or require measures that favor contractors who do this, but other jurisdictions do not. The Partnership is recommending state and federal policies to favor this, noting that such policies keep revenue inside the local community and create career pathways for people in economically disadvantaged communities.

The second recommendation is around transit-oriented development. Jurisdictions should encourage building homes and jobs near transit, which makes them more accessible to people who can't afford cars. Also, new transit in lower-income areas should come with a “corridor community preservation and improvement plan” to protect against displacement in the nearby communities.

What GGWash volunteers think: These are good steps, though it's also certain the discussions covered a lot more than is here. For instance, TOD is great, but it's particularly important to add jobs on the east side of the region, and the Blueprint doesn't talk about this issue, known as the east-west divide. With jobs disproportionately located in the western parts of the region, residents to the east face longer commutes and have fewer employement options. The divide is also inefficient for transportation: A 2016 WMATA study found that growing jobs on the east side could swing Metrorail from running a deficit of $350 million a year to a $270 million surplus. Or even if a surplus is not so realistic, even leaning more toward east side growth than today's unbalanced pattern could save tens of millions.

That's not so easy, for sure; it's hard to tell governments of west side counties that they ought to compete less fiercely to woo new employers, and employers have their own reasons for preferring to cluster. But the status quo has its own big price, both in dollars and equity.

Similarly, really advancing equity in transportation also involves issues of providing affordable housing and affordable ways for people to live nearer their jobs. The Blueprint makes a start here at addressing a very large and important issue.

Technology is advancing all the time, and the Blueprint highlights a number of ways to use technology for better mobility in the super-region.

One valuable but less sexy step is for all of the governments and transportation agencies in the region to share the data they collect about travel demand and performance, maintaining people's privacy, and aid local research universities in analyzing it.

A second proposal: push “integrated mobility platforms” that let travelers plan, book, and pay for trips across modes like transit, bikeshare, ride-hailing, and more. This is a proposal the Partnership has already explored in a report, which author David Zipper wrote about in a set of posts for GGWash. Other cities around the world have been experimenting with this promising idea.

The Blueprint recommends deploying “smart traffic signals,” where video cameras and sensors detect real-time conditions and make adjustments. Notably, it also asks DOTs to “recommend best practices for traffic signal hierarchy prioritization for private vehicles, shared vehicles, transit vehicles, bikes, and pedestrians.” That means it's not simply saying the goal of the signals is to move cars as fast as possible, but serve all road users and move people rather than vehicles.

Finally, autonomous vehicles are coming, eventually, and the Partnership wants to see regional governments work together to plan strategy for these instead of doing everything inside their individual boxes. Through DCST, I'm currently coordinating a DC-funded study of autonomous vehicles and their impact on the District. Having regional coordination is a good idea, and we plan to communicate with officials in Maryland and Virginia as part of the study (but it's true that the study will mostly look at DC because that's who's funding it).

What GGWash committees think: There's a lot that can be said about all of these topics, including what's said and more that could be also. On smart signals, it's great to ask for a study of performance metrics, and the Blueprint says, “Blindly prioritizing improvements for private vehicle movement at intersections can limit the growth of transit ridership, biking, and walking—growth that the region’s state and regional transportation plans seek to support.” Any ways to strengthen this point and remind DOTs they aren't simply using signals to speed up motor vehicles is important.

On autonomous vehicles, clearly this could be a whole Blueprint on its own. This section, and others, could also talk more about freight. More broadly, let's be clear that we're facing a similar situation as when cars first came to cities. They're a big opportunity, but also a danger. Blindly racing to embrace new technology here could amount to making the same mistakes the United States did in the 20th century with automobiles. Thoughtful planning can turn autonomous cars to improve life for residents instead of making it worse.

But the Blueprint isn't trying to say everything right now. Better regional coordination is a no-brainer.

Governance! Money!

Transportation makes up a lot of governments' budgets. Some jurisdictions, like Virginia, have a rigorous system for evaluating the costs and benefits of various investments and procedures that push for decisions to follow this data. A lot depends on how the formulas work, but Virginia's done a pretty nice job of it on the whole. The DC region's Transportation Planning Board also does it.

DC doesn't at all. The Maryland legislature just established a new system to do this, which was slowed down last year amid complaints by Republicans who wanted to keep funding roads in lightly-populated areas that might not score well.

The Blueprint recommends that DC start using performance metrics, as should the Metropolitan Planning Organizations for Baltimore and Richmond, the BMC and RRTPO respectively, as well as WMATA (WMATA has a process for its repair projects, but it's not transparent). And it recommends that all MPOs create clearer standards that include equitable access as “a primary performance measure.”

The Maryland MTA operates and plans Baltimore transit, and the MTA is controlled by the governor, making some decisions very political. Having direct state control of transportation is unusual nationally, and the Partnership recommends creating a new governance structure that involves the city and counties as well. This, they hope, will reduce the degree to which changes in governors whipsaws Baltimore projects like the now-canceled Red Line from hot to cold and maybe back again.

Finally, funding. Most transportation depends on the federal gas tax, which hasn't kept up with inflation. It was last raised in 1993, and now essentially brings in 40% less than it did 25 years ago. The Partnership suggests exploring higher gas taxes and other revenue sources. Gas taxes also break down if vehicles are eletrified, which they need to be if we're to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. And more fuel-efficient vehicles also reduce revenues while still putting wear and tear on roads. The Blueprint recommends experimenting with other funding sources like a Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) fee.

What GGWash committees think: Good ideas here. In addition to Baltimore, it might be worth considering a regional entity for Montgomery and Prince George's counties also, similar to the Northern Virginia Transportation Authority. On revenue sources, calling for more exploration/discussion is great, but at some point it has to turn into concrete proposals. A VMT fee will be controversial, but is absolutely worth further work. Let's hope the CEOs of the Partnership are willing to really push for actual change here.

Overall thoughts

Our volunteer committees agreed with signing onto this, with the specific caveat that we aren't in agreement about widening highways like the Beltway, 270, and the BW Parkway with toll lanes. On the other hand, they appreciate that this document is looking at tolls instead of blindly adding unpriced road capacity.

Members noted that as an explicitly super-regional document, there's more focus on long-range and suburban travel and fewer items about urban mobility, Metro, BRT, or affordable housing. They recognized that one Blueprint couldn't say everything and know that this reflects the places the staff, CEOs, and stakeholders could reach consensus, but this should be a starting point, not an end, for many conversations.

The regional Transportation Planning Board, which comprises elected officials from around the Washington region, just issued Visualize 2045, a long-range transportation plan. That includes seven aspirational ideas which have a lot in common with the Blueprint: both talk about building around under-utilized Metro stations, about bus priority/BRT, about employer incentives to not drive alone including telecommuting, about bike trails, and about toll highways.

Sometimes the Blueprint is more ambitious, like on bike trails and commuting incentives; sometimes the reverse, and with a few exceptions this Blueprint is more focused on specific ideas for intergovernmental coordination than big-ticket infrastructure. And the TPB focused on Metro while the Partnership looks more at commuter rail, but both are important.

Overall, it's promising to see agreement on these priorities. It's also promising that the really bad ideas, like the Outer Beltway, are left off both lists. Not only is there a growing consensus on top items, but a more and more firmly established stance to move past destructive ideas of the past and look to future solutions.

What do you think of this long list of ideas? What are the best ones? What's missing?

Montgomery County has a Bicycle Master Plan whose “1,100-mile network of bikeways includes 573 miles of sidepaths, 172 miles of trails, 128 miles of bikeable shoulders, 99 miles of separated bike lanes and 48 miles of neighborhood greenways.” Sounds exciting! But there's some unwarranted angst over its cost.

More than a quarter of this network already exists, and the county is looking to build it out further. On Monday, the Montgomery County Council's Transportation, Infrastructure, Energy and Environment Committee is meeting to discuss the plan's recently completed Fiscal Impact Statement (FIS), which sets the cost of the 25-year plan at $3.1 billion. That's without “substantial” land acquisition costs.

County Executive Ike Leggett is even claiming that “implementing the scope and timing of the proposed plan would cause extreme duress to the capital and operating budgets.”

$3.1 billion is admittedly a lot of money. But it doesn't accurately define the cost of the plan. It's important to understand how jurisdictions make and use transportation plans.

Plans aren't only about what you're going to build

A transportation plan isn't just a list of capital projects that the government is going to do. It's also a framework for how infrastructure built by private landowners or other governments, like the state or federal government, should fit together.

For instance, say you're a county. You have a large shopping mall and two new neighborhoods are being built on either side. You want to make sure that when a neighborhood is built in between, the roads line up. You might make a plan showing those roads, but you aren't going to build them, at least not now. Does that make your new plan a really expensive one?

The $3.1 billion bikeway price tag would only be the cost if Montgomery County itself builds every single mile of planned bikeway, and the planning staff states up front that this isn't the case:

Such a large network is proposed so that opportunities to implement the preferred bicycling network are not lost when yet unknown circumstances arise, such as future capital projects and development applications.

In other words, some of these are merely unfunded lines on maps, which is how they'll stay unless some other entity such as the state or federal government decides to build a project that intersects with the plan. If that happens, the county then has the ability to push them to build the facility they've planned for. In addition, about half a billion dollars worth of these projects are expected to be built by private developers.

Putting unfunded projects in a plan is not unusual. In DC, the 2005 bike plan included a bike path along the old rail spur to St. Elizabeth's. That planned, but completely unfunded path, was considered years later when DHS decided to develop the property. Now a path will extend along that route and then all the way across Ward 8. This is how a lot of facilities wind up being built.

However, many of these lines will never become trails or bike lanes, and it's unrealistic to include them all as costs, since the plan is for the county to never pay for them or at least to never pay the full price.

Many paths are pedestrian or highway safety projects too

The planning staff also notes that many of these facilities are dual-use and therefore should not count as a bike plan cost entirely. There are 23 bikeable shoulders that are also highway safety projects (and are unlikely to be built unless to provide shoulders for drivers). The cost of these make up $1.8 billion of the total.

The 450 miles of sidepaths will also serve pedestrians and should be counted accordingly.

For these reasons, the planning board estimates the fiscal impact of the bicycle plan is actually less than $1.9 billion. It's like having a plan for sidewalks and saying that the cost of reconstructing every road is part of the cost. That wouldn't make sense.

Other budget estimates are even less accurate

The county Office of Management and Budget (OMB)'s $3.1 billion estimate is bad enough, but then it gets worse. Glenn Orlin, the staff member for the county council who leads its analysis on transportation, submitted a memo arguing that $3.1 billion actually understates the price tag, and the real cost is $6.5 billion because $2.5 billion worth of bikeways are not priced out.

When the planning board noted that not all of the bikeways will be implemented, he asked, “[Then] why are they all master-planned?” He also points out (as the OMB also acknowledged) that the land costs are not included, and argues for a major de-scoping:

One way to reduce this cost while generally respecting the Planning Board's priorities is to delete from the master plan the projects in Tiers 4 and 5, and many (but not all) of the bike-able shoulders in Tier 3.

This will not actually save the county any money, but it might prevent bike projects from being built. The deleted projects won't be built by the county, but rather are there as placeholders in case someone else — a developer, Maryland, or the federal government to name a few — can be convinced to build them. Having them in the plan makes it easier to get them built.

In a stark contrast, there's no discussion at all of the budget busting scope of the county's Master Plan of Highways and Transitways, which is also being updated.

The committee meeting is/was at 2:45 pm on Monday. I'll be watching to closely to see if councilmembers let these disingenuous budget shenanigans cripple what's an exciting and ambitious (and not so expensive) bicycle vision for Montgomery County.

Top image: A network of proposed “breezeways,” or longer-distance bikeable trails and paths across Montgomery County in the Bicycle Master Plan.

In 2016, the Kenilworth extension of the Anacostia River Trail opened with much fanfare. Advocates and city officials hailed it as providing a key missing segment of DC’s bike network. They were right, but they didn't point out what was still missing. When studying a map of the region, it doesn’t take long to notice that Ward 8 has a dearth of lanes and trails.

The planned South Capitol Street Trail would help fill that gap and also provide a connection to allow full circumnavigation of the city’s rivers. Unfortunately, the project has been in the planning stages for almost two decades and there's no timeline for its completion.

This is DC’s trail network. Off-street trails and protected bike lanes are in dark green, and other bike lanes are in light green.

It's difficult to get around many neighborhoods east of the Anacostia

The portion of the District along the Ward 8 portion of South Capitol Street is unique. It holds a number of Department of Defense bases and municipal headquarters sandwiched between the Potomac River and I-295. Moving from south to north you see DC Water’s Blue Plains Wastewater Treatment Facility, The Naval Research Lab, and the Joint Base Anacostia-Bolling, all of which employ roughly 17,000 people.

However, getting around this area remains challenging except by car, an amenity not everyone wants nor can afford. I-295 represents a massive physical and psychological barrier to movement between most of Ward 8 to the east of I-295 and the Potomac and Anacostia Rivers, the DoD bases, and Blue Plains to the west of I-295. Those who want to bike or walk along South Capitol Street must literally risk their lives — as anyone who’s ever tried to can attest.

DC plans to change this with the South Capitol Trail, which will enable bicycle and pedestrian commuting and give residents an option for healthy recreation. It could also help boost economic growth by allowing for easier movement across the highway and elsewhere around the area.

Typical segment of South Capitol Street. Image created with Google Maps.

The South Capitol Trail will transform the District

We can estimate how many people will use such a new trail to commute to work. Of the approximately 17,000 employees working immediately to the west of the South Capitol Street, let’s assume about 1% currently commute by bike due to the extremely hostile conditions. If this number increases to the DC average of 5% once the South Capitol Trail is built, this would result in nearly 700 new bike commuters and a lot fewer cars on the road.

The number of individuals walking south from Anacostia Metro Station to these large employment centers would also likely increase significantly. There are also unknown numbers of Ward 8 residents who would be able to get to and from work and other amenities that are now accessible only by car or bus.

If DC is taking its Vision Zero goals of zero transportation fatalities or serious injuries by 2024 seriously, it must include completion of the South Capitol Street Trail in its plans. On top of the benefits above, this critical link would give DC residents dramatically improved access to National Harbor and the beautiful Oxon Cove Park in nearby Maryland.

Oxon Cove Park, immediately South East of the DC border with MD.

The South Capitol Trail would dramatically improve North-South movement, but providing bicycle and pedestrian connections east-west into downtown DC is also necessary so residents east of the Anacostia can more easily access jobs and amenities in the center of the city. DDOT should begin planning for improved access from the neighborhoods east of I-295 to the proposed South Capitol Trail.

When will this critical project actually happen?

This trail would be beneficial to many residents, but it's a long time coming. Planning for the South Capitol Trail began in earnest in the 2000s, culminating in the 2010 Draft Concept Plan. Eight years have since passed, and except for a single webpage scant of details, there is very little publicly available information.

The project indicates that final design is planned for completion in Fall 2018, with no mention of projected dates to begin or complete construction. For many in the corridor — including those who have been injured from vehicle collisions — this lack of communication on this critical project is unacceptable.

South Capitol Street Trail route from DDOT website.

One likely explanation for the project delays is that some roads would need to be reconfigured to accomodate bicycle lanes, an expensive and complicated task. There are a few “choke points” in particular that may require “right of way” negotiations with the Joint Base Anacostia-Bolling.

One choke point in particular is where South Capitol Street forks to the east and Overlook Avenue forks to the west. Installing a bike trail in this location would likely require removing a lane of traffic.

The District Department of Transportation (DDOT) may be on the brink of finally moving forward with this impactful project. DC is in the midst of an economic expansion and has the revenue to accomplish projects it previously may not have been able to prioritize, and the 2019 Transportation Improvement Plan includes $11M for constructing this trail.

The new Frederick Douglass Memorial Bridge will include a rebuild of the northern terminus of the proposed South Capitol Street Trail. It will also significantly improve bicycle and pedestrian access across the bridge.

View looking northwest on the under construction new Frederick Douglass Memorial Bridge. Separated bicycle and pedestrian lanes on the right.

If done correctly, the South Capitol Street Trail project could transform the corridor. It would improve safety and access for Ward 8 residents and employees, and significantly enhance recreational resources for the entire region.

However, for all these wonderful things to become a reality, the project has to actually be built. It’s time for the DDOT project team to provide a full public update on this project.

A version of this post was first published on August 17, 2011. It's useful so we're running it again!

As urban cycling becomes more common, new terms are entering the lexicon that people may not be completely familiar with. Here is a guide to the most common types of urban bikeways.

There are seven basic types of bicycle travelways. In increasing order of separation quality, they are:

Cyclist in mixed traffic. Image by BeyondDC created with Google street view.

1. Mixed traffic

Mixed traffic bikeways are simply regular streets on which bikes are permitted to mix with cars. Almost every street in existence qualifies, except those with dedicated bike facilities, or the few where bikes are specifically outlawed (such as Interstate highways).

Many jurisdictions designate unaltered mixed-traffic streets deemed to be inherently bike-friendly as “suggested bike routes.” Arlington’s bike map provides a good example: white-colored streets are normal roads, while blue-colored streets are suggested bike routes. Both white and blue qualify as mixed-traffic bikeways. Some cyclists prefer to ride in mixed traffic rather than on dedicated facilities.

Sharrow streets are mixed traffic roads on which graphics have been applied to the roadway indicating that cars and bikes should share the full lane as equals.

Sharrows notify drivers that they should expect bicycles on that street, and indicate to bicyclists that is safe to ride in the center of the street rather than on the sidewalk or in the door zone. They are the minimum bike-specific infrastructure applied to shared-use roads.

Image by BeyondDC created with Google street view.

3. Bike lane

Bike lanes are the most common type of bike-specific infrastructure in most cities. They are lanes painted onto a street that are designated for use by bicycles, but which are not physically protected from lanes used by cars.

Most bike lanes are located on the extreme right of the through part of the street, but to the left of the parking lane or right-turn lane (if they are present). Drivers are allowed (and in most jurisdictions, are supposed to) merge into bike lanes before turning right.

The most common type of bike lane is designated with white paint as shown in the picture. Some jurisdictions take the extra step of painting them green at key locations in order to increase visibility. Another modification to the standard bike line is to add a painted buffer that increases the separation between bikes and cars. Painted or buffered bike lanes may be considered “enhanced.”

Bike boulevards are pathways specifically optimized for bikes through a variety of techniques, but on which cars are also permitted (though sometimes discouraged) to operate in mixed traffic, except in the case of dead-end streets where bikes are permitted to continue forward but not cars.

Bike boulevards are common on residential streets in the western US and Canada, but rare in the DC area. Arlington has two, parallel to Columbia Pike. There are some cases where a short trail through a wooded area or a non-auto bridge across a stream provides cyclists with a more direct route between discontiguous streets than cars can take. There are several examples of this in DC’s suburbs, and most can be discovered by using Google Maps’ cycling directions.

In North American usage, protected bikeways are segments of roads that are completely exclusive to bikes, physically separated from all other modes. The most common form is as an on-street bike lane placed between the curb and row of parked cars, but separation can also be obtained through other means such as bollards or additional curbs.

Protected bikeways can come in manyshapes and sizes, and are generally considered to be the pinnacle of street-adjacent bikeways. Protected bikeways are sometimes called cycletracks, although in Europe that term is more general and can be synonymous with bike lane

Trails are dedicated car-free travelways that follow their own unique route. They are intended to be not only off-street, but to be completely free of any interaction with cars at all. Even street crossings are intended to be extremely rare, and ideally are grade separated.

Most trails are technically shared-use paths, which means pedestrians are permitted to use them as well, but the degree of separation from cars is such that trails are generally considered to be superior to protected bikeways and all other forms of bike infrastructure. The bulk of the paved trails in greater Washington, and in most US cities, follow abandoned railroad rights-of-way or the banks of streams or rivers.

The full gamut of bicycle infrastructure includes many other types of enhancements, such as bike boxes and bike stations, but these are the seven basic types of bicycle travelways available.

Are you a big fan of the red Capital Bikeshare bikes? Come connect with other CaBi lovers at the first CaBi Connection!

Join the fun by testing your CaBi knowledge with trivia, enjoying some free snacks, and make sure you bring a friend to introduce to CaBi as well. The event is at Lost Dog Cafe's Columbia Pike location (2920 Columbia Pike) on Tuesday, March 27, from 5:30 pm to 7:30 pm.

Check out these other great events too:

Monday, March 26

The closer, the better: “Within Walking Distance,” the latest book from Philip Langdon, looks at how buildings connect to the public realm. In particular, he looks at bicycling, public transportation, and incorporation of nature and parks into city or town life. Want to hear from the author himself? Head to an evening lecture and networking event with Philip Langdon at 6 pm at the National Press Club, 13th Floor, 529 14th St NW.

Saturday, March 31

A critical trail connection: The Washington Baltimore & Annapolis Trail (WB&A) in Central Prince George’s County is a great trail and linear park that stretches almost seven miles from the Patuxent River to Annapolis Road. But it's not connected to any other trails. WABA wants to fix that, and you can help. Join WABA staff, trail lovers, neighbors and advocates to kick off a campaign to extend the WB&A towards DC along Martin Luther King Jr. Ave. The event is from 11 am - 12:30 pm at Glenarden Library (8724 Glenarden Pkwy) in Glenarden.

Next Monday, April 2

Diving into ADUs: Accessory apartments, also known as accessory dwelling units (ADUs), are now allowed in DC. They a great way to add housing in busy cities. Discover the challenges and opportunities of building an accessory apartment at an event at the National Building Museum with Harriet Tregoning (moderator), Cheryl Cort, Policy Director of Coalition for Smarter Growth, M. Jennifer Harty, AIA, architect, and Aakash Thakkar, ADU homeowner. The event is from 6:30 to 8 pm and costs $12 for members, $10 for students, and $20 for non-members. RSVP here.

On February 14, 2018 Baltimore’s Board of Estimates voted to delay the city’s planned downtown bike network. This once-promising initiative has been floundering for over a year, and it’s not the first bike infrastructure initiative to peter out in the city.

While Baltimore seems resistant to promoting biking, surrounding counties and smaller cities have gone in the opposite direction and are boosting their cycling infrastructure. So why is Charm City moving in the wrong direction?

Baltimore’s bike commitment has fluctuated with different administrations

Baltimore City’s relationship with cycling has been steadily deteriorating since Mayor Sheila Dixon kicked off her campaign in 2006 (she was then City Council president) for what she envisioned as a bike-friendly Baltimore.

Under Dixon the city began making great strides, including developing a Bike Master Plan with its own bike planner. With her promises and commitment, a bike friendly-future seemed just around the corner. Baltimore City even received a bronze Bicycle Friendly Community award from the League of American Bicyclists, and was one of the first four Bicycle Friendly Communities in the state beside Bethesda, Frederick, and Rockville.

However, in the years since Dixon things have gone downhill in Baltimore, while the surrounding jurisdictions have improved.

The Bicycle Master Plan stalled under Mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake, and the bicycle planner role became a part-time contractual position. But with the Bicycle Friendly Community renewal on the line and Bikemore and Bike Maryland working together, Rawlings-Blake ultimately came around on the benefits of investing in safe cycling infrastructure.

Work restarted on the bicycle network and the city took a chance with the Roland Avenue bikeway. They also installed the Maryland Avenue bikeway and moved forward with plans for Potomac Avenue. Baltimore also worked with the Mid-Atlantic Off Road Enthusiasts to reopen Loch Raven to mountain biking.

Unfortunately, the forward momentum that seemed to have finally arrived rapidly stalled upon Mayor Catherine Pugh’s inauguration late in 2016. The fight over Potomac Avenue first seemed like the normal “bikelash.” Plenty of neighborhoods get mad about a new bike lane, and the argument about emergency services has come up before. But the city applying fire clearance guidelines specifically to kill bike projects — while ignoring that same fire clearance for parking projects — is something else entirely.

Pugh seems to have drawn a line in the sand on bike projects. She refused to move the bicycle network forward, despite pressure from many residents who want to be able to get around the city safely.

Antipathy towards cycling is not a regional phenomenon. In fact, as Baltimore goes backwards the surrounding suburban counties are making massive investments in bicycling infrastructure. Other areas including Columbia, Hagerstown, and Salisbury have been recognized as bike-friendly communities.

Large cities, with their greater density, find it easier to build a sustainable bicycle network. Nonetheless, it’s Maryland’s suburban counties and small cities that are taking the lead in building safe road networks for their residents.

People keep parking in the protected bikeway on 4th Street NE, forcing cyclists into traffic and defeating the purpose of having a separate lane. In spite of seven months of efforts by local resident Paul Angelone using Twitter to highlight this persistent problem, drivers continue to park in it daily, with seemingly few (if any) repercussions.

The bidirectional bikeway on 4th Street NE connects the Union Market area across Florida Avenue NE to the M Street NE bikeway, which continues to the Metropolitan Branch Trail and the 1st Street Bikeway. In its design, it resembles the 15th Street bikeway, with bicyclists heading in both directions using a lane adjacent to the curb. It was installed in 2017 as an upgrade to the former one-way painted bike lane.

Paul Angelone started highlighting the problem of drivers parking in the bikeway in July 2017, reporting the issue to @311DCGov. The DC Department of Public Works is the agency responsible for parking enforcement and 311 requests (either by phone, through the 311 app, or via twitter) are the way that they're alerted to send enforcement.

It's pretty common for there to be issues with illegal parking when a new bikeway is installed. Sometimes it's from drivers not understanding the new arrangement or just continuing past behavior from force of habit. When Paul first started reporting the problem, the bikeway was still under construction. There was no green paint or flex posts or other blatant visual cues that are normally present with the installation of a cycletrack.

Generally, the kind of recurring parking problem that Angelone reported sorts itself out over time as drivers learn the new arrangement and as the bikeway assumes a more finished state. This wasn't drivers making a quick stop and throwing on their flashers (as is unfortunately far too common in many bike lanes citywide), but instead, cars being left in the bike lane for hours at a time.

In an attempt to provide greater clarity to the situation, in October DDOT painted a ‘loading zone’ in the lane next to bikeway to further clarify where drivers were supposed to be. They also added more flex posts in the middle of the lane in an attempt to provide an engineering solution to the problem.

From this morning’s truck blocking #bikedc lane. Note the front wheels are in a different position so means that it’s been moved recently. There’s a $6 all day lot with empty spots. Though that’s more expensive than free street parking! pic.twitter.com/tgfZlApE3M

Several trucks blocking #bikedc lanes this morning. Loading zone clear and nearby streets have open spots. Plus open spots in surface lot. This is dangerous for parents bringing kids to Two Rivers school across street. pic.twitter.com/EpqOWOT1mP

Last week, DPW sent parking enforcement and said that they would follow up with the business owner.

Thank you for bringing this to our attention. Bike lane enforcement is something we take seriously. We sent a parking enforcement officer out today and issued some citations. Please continue to call @311DCgov. pic.twitter.com/CKmZNJjBCH

We will be having a follow-up conversation with the local business owner about customer/employee parking in the bike lane, and will be increasing our enforcement presence in this area. Appreciate everyone's diligence and patience. @charlesallen

I appreciate you being there yesterday afternoon, but violations occur every day on this block & create dangerous conditions. It’s been reported almost every day - by residents & my office. Consistent enforcement needed to make sure its clear riders & the bike lane are protected. https://t.co/vu1ffjats2

Bicycle planners talk a lot about the E’s: education, enforcement, and engineering. This is a scenario in which all three Es have been tried, but to no avail. Changing signs and painting the loading zone was an attempt to educate drivers on the new arrangement. Tickets (enforcement) have been issued, though inconsistently. Adding flex posts, green paint, and a separate loading zone was an attempt to engineer a safer solution. However, none of these efforts has worked in any kind of meaningful way. Perhaps the planned meeting will finally resolve the issue.

A protected bikeway is only as good as its weakest link and the continued, deliberate parking in the bikeway essentially renders the 4th Street NE lane unusable on a consistent basis. Clearly the problem isn’t going to resolve itself and this situation questions the resolve of the DC agencies responsible for making our roads work for all users. Neither DDOT nor DPW has been able to fully address a known issue for over seven months, in spite of consistent reporting of the issue.

Moreover, for as much as these agencies rely on (and encourage) citizens to report known issues, having this information and failing to act on it to achieve a workable resolution creates a huge trust gap. Not every person is like Paul and will continue to report the problem each day they see it for seven months, and it seems unreasonable for this to be the expectation. No one expects local government to be able to immediately solve every problem upon its first mention and in this case, intermediate steps were taken to try to fix it. However, when those steps were shown to not be working, there seemed to be no backup plan in spite of continued prodding.

Parking enforcement is hard. There are limited resources available and thousands of miles of streets in the District to patrol. There will always be drivers who get away with parking in a bike lane or overstaying a meter, and it's unrealistic to believe that we could enforce our way out of every single infraction. But it's not clear that the kind of enforcement that's being prioritized is the kind that would most help vulnerable users. The lingering problem of the 4th Street NE bikeway shows the costs of this.

The District Department of Transportation (DDOT) has narrowed down the alternatives for reconfiguring the confounding intersection of Florida Avenue and New York Avenues NE to two. One proposal would see the Wendy's at the intersection's center razed in favor of more green space, while the other would leave the restaurant in place on a shrunken footprint.

The intersection, known as a “virtual circle” by DDOT and nicknamed “Dave Thomas Circle” in a nod to the Wendy's founder by residents, has been the bane of users for years. The oddly shaped intersection was on the city's edge in L'Enfant's 1791 plan. Over the next century, the wedge at its center became an “orphaned triangle of land” as the city grew up around it, as The Washington Post recently put it.

Both concepts bring more space for people walking and biking

Both of the concepts that DDOT is considering provide more space for pedestrians and cyclists while also attempting to improve circulation through the intersection.

Concept six would see the Wendy's at the center of Dave Thomas Circle razed in favor of more green space. Image by DDOT.

Concept Six includes razing the Wendy's and creating new green space around a rerouted Eckington Place NE through the site. It includes protected bike lanes on Eckington Place, as well as connecting First Street NE to Florida Avenue via the southern shoulder of New York Avenue through the intersection.

The alternative is a modified version of Concept Five that was presented in April 2017 — changes that followed community input, according to Sam Zimbabwe, chief project delivery officer at DDOT, in an email.

Concept three leaves the Wendy's at the center of Dave Thomas Circle but with a smaller footprint. Image by DDOT.

Concept Three remains little changed from the April 2017 presentation. The Wendy's would remain on the site but some of its footprint would be taken to create additional space for pedestrians and cyclists.

One notable difference between the two concepts are bike facilities. Concept Six has two-way protected bike lanes covering much of the intersection's periphery, while concept three has 10-foot shared paths in many of the same places.

Advisory Neighborhood Commission (ANC) 5E04 commissioner Sylvia Pinkney shared the short-listed concepts with the Eckington Civic Association (ECA) at its February meeting after Zimbabwe shared them with the ANC earlier in the month.

Everyone agrees that something needs to be done

“Dave Thomas Circle is a failing intersection and it's been failing for way too long,” said Ward 5 Councilmember Kenyan McDuffie at an ANC 5E meeting in January. “It's just not safe. Particularly if you're talking about people who want to walk or bike or jog, not just a car.”

The current configuration, with eastbound traffic on Florida Avenue turning south onto First Street NE before turning left onto New York Avenue or continuing their journeys east, opened in 2010.

The current flow of traffic around the virtual circle. Image by DDOT.

Residents at the ANC and ECA meetings agree with McDuffie. They repeatedly expressed a desire that the Wendy's be razed and the intersection be improved for pedestrians, cyclists, and drivers trying to get into and out of Eckington.

One complicating factor in removing the Wendy's is the fact that the restaurant and land are owned by different people, requiring three-way negotiations between them and DDOT, said McDuffie.

“Right-of-way is a complicated process for any DOT, so we are trying to do our due diligence in order to inform the decision on how to proceed,” says Zimbabwe.

Neither McDuffie nor Zimbabwe provided a timeline for changes to the Florida Avenue and New York Avenue intersection.

Top image: DDOT has narrowed the alternatives for reconfiguring the intersection at Florida Avenue and New York Avenue NE. Image by the author.

I broke my jaw last July after falling off my bike. I was headed south on 14th Street in Columbia Heights and swerved to avoid another cyclist, who was riding in the opposite direction in my one-way, painted lane. My front wheel hit a parked car and I slid off my bike, landing on my chin.

After the initial surgery, which involved the insertion of a titanium plate in my chin, my mouth was rubber-banded shut for several weeks; the aggressive metal bridges were replaced with braces, which I’ll have for the indefinite future. I have extensive orthodontic work to look forward to when they come off. My jaw itself is mostly healed now.

I’ve told the tale of how I broke my jaw countless times, as is wont to happen with a visible injury with a long recovery time — especially one that I incurred riding a bike, something I do both daily for transportation and professionally as the general manager of a bikeshare system. I’m grateful for the outpouring of support and love that I received in DC where the crash happened; in Cleveland, where I live; and online, where I talk to many of you. But I was surprised to find that one of the most frequent reactions to the whole tale, especially from people I know to be bike riders, was a variation of, “Wow, f*** that other guy for salmoning.”

Maybe I shouldn’t have been caught off-guard. Salmoning — riding against traffic on a bike, particularly in a one-way, designated bike lane — is really bad. In 2010, Sarah Goodyear wrote for Streetsblog, “They are endangering other bikers as well as themselves with their wrong-way riding. It’s one of the most frustrating and hazardous phenomena I encounter on my bike on a regular basis.” Around the same time, I was writing about biking in DC and managing communications for the Washington Area Bicyclist Association, so many of my conversations were about cyclist behavior; salmoning was a frequent target of vitriol. It’s commonly assumed that offenders are putting themselves, and others, at risk — stupidly so. Discussions of it often culminate in an exasperated sigh of, “Why would you even do this?”

I was and am sympathetic: Seeing someone ride straight toward you in a narrow lane is scary, and I now have the medical bills, scars, chipped teeth, and dental implants to prove just how much damage a salmoning cyclist can do.

But salmoning isn’t inscrutable, and it isn’t the problem. The design of our streets, the relatively tiny percentage of space that we dedicate to road users who aren’t driving, and a culture that favors driving over walking and biking are far more damaging than individual cyclists riding the wrong way. And rather than assuming that this specific individual's behavior is a stupid or idiotic choice, enacted with little regard for others, we should be asking about the implications that a built environment that’s hostile to people on bikes and on foot can have.

The intersection where my bike crash occurred. Look at how much space is devoted to cars and how little is devoted to pedestrians and cyclists. And this is a street that actually has a bike lane. Image by the author.

The cyclist that I swerved to avoid stopped to see if I was OK, but there wasn’t much he could do: I was spitting out parts of my teeth and trying to figure out how to get to the hospital without calling an ambulance (I took a Lyft). I asked him not to ride the wrong way in a bike lane ever again, and told him to go — it was around 10:30 pm on a Sunday, and I assumed he was heading home from a second shift.

If I had had more wits about me, I would have asked him why he was salmoning. But I can wager a guess. My suspicion is that he was traveling north in the northbound lane, then cut over when car traffic was clear to salmon in the southbound lane so that he could more easily make the left turn from 14th Street onto Oak Street. There’s no light or crosswalk at 14th and Oak, and drivers are often speeding on 14th.

I could be wrong, of course. I don’t know the intentions of every cyclist. But I don’t believe that people, including the man I encountered, salmon for pure convenience: They do it because they’ve weighed their options and determined that the alternative — even if the alternative is using bike infrastructure properly — is worse. If people are naturally risk-averse, then why is salmoning so pervasive? It can’t be because cyclists, who don’t break traffic laws at any greater rate than motorists, have a pathological desire to flout cultural norms with abandon. I’m willing to bet that it’s because the option of riding “correctly” often feels, and may actually be, less safe. (Jake Dobkin, writing on Gothamist, came to the same conclusion after calculating various potential routes on a Citibike in his post, “In Defense of Salmoning On A Bike.”)

Additionally, consider the evolution of motorist safety and automotive engineering, detailed in a recent 99 Percent Invisible episode. Car crashes were once considered solely the fault of the driver — the “nut behind the wheel.” After enough fatalities, the responsibility for preventing life-threatening incidents was shifted onto auto manufacturers, who redesigned their equipment. This podcast episode isn’t about, and therefore does not address, street design, which, of course, plays a significant role in road safety today. But it’s an instructive illustration of how factors bigger than an individual’s behavior came to be perceived as critical to solve. This changed the way we talk about auto safety, and we should think about the interplay between road-user behavior and street design in similarly structural terms.

Stop signs weren’t designed for cyclists. In fact, very little of our built environment was designed with cyclists in mind. What we have done [...] is developed a tolerance for cyclists, and that only with some heroic effort. Engineers now generally accept cyclists and have even created checklists to help us accommodate them — at least the skilled ones — at a minimal level in our current transportation system. Tolerating cyclists, and sometimes even attempting to accommodate them, is a far cry from designing systems based on their needs.

Very little has changed since then. Though streets for people have become increasingly widely accepted, there is still a cultural tendency to castigate those on bikes whose behavior is less than pure. Riding the wrong way might irk the living daylights out of fastidiously rule-abiding cyclists. But we shouldn’t deride it, or the people who do it, without simultaneously treating its prevalence as a referendum on our unacceptable, unsafe infrastructure.

DC wants to rebuild Long Bridge, which carries trains across the Potomac River between Arlington and DC. The plans used to include a separate bridge for walking and biking, but now it may not be built at all.

The Long Bridge is an aging railroad bridge that the District Department of Transportation (DDOT) in coordination with the Federal Railroad Administration are either rehabilitating or replacing. The 2013 Long Bridge study created several alternatives for its potential replacement, many of which included a bike and pedestrian path.

The replacement project is continuing to move towards completion of the Environmental Impact Statement, slated to be finished in 2019. Unfortunately, recent presentations show planners may not be including a bicycle and pedestrian facility after all. Even if it is included, it will provide the bare minimum in connectivity.

Here's what's happening with the Long Bridge project

Last spring as Phase II was being completed, the bike/ped facility was not included within the purpose and need statement, leading the Washington Area Bicycle Association (WABA) to worry that it was “too narrowly focused on the needs of freight and passenger rail.” The bridge currently serves freight, Amtrak, and commuter trains.

WABA added, “A Long Bridge replacement without a high-quality trail is a wasted, once-in-a-century, opportunity.”

Then, last month as part of Phase III, DDOT and the FRA, the project's leaders, presented the results of the level II screening, which eliminated all but two of the nine original options. In the presentation, they make clear that the “feasibility of bike-pedestrian crossing opportunities continue to be evaluated, but were not screened as part of the Level 2 Screening using Purpose and Need.”

It's still not clear there is a strong commitment to including a bike and pedestrian path to the Long Bridge, and even one they do present is lacking in ambition. The only requirements of the crossing are that it:

Provides 25 feet clearance between bridges over the river

Avoids the Department of Defense facility

Connects to the existing bike-pedestrian network

Has less than five percent slope on the ramps from the crossing to the existing trails

The three bike/ped crossing options presented include a separate downstream or upstream bridge, or a crossing attached to the Long Bridge.

Long Bridge Bike-Pedestrian Crossing Opportunities

The designs do the bare minimum

These alternatives would all connect the Mt. Vernon Trail to Ohio Drive, which is fine but not much of an improvement over the current sidepath on the George Mason Bridge. Prior plans in Virginia and DC call for a facility that would instead extend to Long Bridge Park on the Virginia side and the Anacostia Riverwalk Trail on the DC Side.

This is the bare minimum a bike and pedestrian path should do. The fact that connections across the George Washington Parkway or the Washington Channel are not considered has drawn criticism of trail advocates.

Long Bridge Park with connection to Mt. Vernon Trail

There are better connectivity options

Arlington already plans to build a connection from Long Bridge Park to the Mt. Vernon Trail. Since this area is included even in the new, smaller Long Bridge project area, it would make sense to do this all together at once. Then we can avoid a bridge crossing that ends at trail level and a Park connection that ends at trail level somewhere else. Advocates are calling for a crossing that stays at rail level all the way, with one bridge down to the trail, as opposed to the ramps currently planned.

Crossing ramp options on Virginia side

This seems like a no-brainer, but continuing the path at rail level across East Potomac Island and the Washington Channel and then connecting it to the Anacostia Riverwalk Trail at Maine Avenue would add a lot of utility to the facility, especially if it included a ramp on the channel side of the island. This would better serve cyclists and pedestrians who currently cross the Mason Bridge and go south on Maine, while also creating better connection to the island.

The new DC Rail plan called for studying the “unused/lightly used” right-of-way on the north side of the railroad from the west side of the L’Enfant Station to the parking lot at the southeast corner of 14th and D SW for a possible rail with trail and that corridor is entirely within the study area. DDOT should look at the possibility of using the Rosa Parks Bridge and new facilities to extend the trail through the corridor, either at rail level — as called for in the Rail Plan — or at street level, as recommended in the Southwest Ecodistrict Plan.

If feasible, this would allow for connections to the Portals V development, L'Enfant Plaza, and Hancock Park.

Unused rail line in Southwest DC Image by the author.

This is a once in a century opportunity to add a first class bike/ped facility to the Long Bridge, one that will connect Crystal City to the Anacostia Riverwalk Trail just upstream from the new Wharf. We shouldn't pass on that chance lightly. Planners are accepting comments on the alternatives at info@longbridgeproject.com until January 16, 2018.

Top image: Marine Marathon at Long Bridge Park. Image by ericwc1 used with permission.

]]>Thu, 21 Mar 2019 17:52:00 +0000David Cranor (Contributor)Here’s how Montgomery County could prioritize safety for people walking and bikinghttps://ggwash.org/view/65734/how-montgomery-county-could-prioritize-pedestrian-safety
https://ggwash.org/view/65734/how-montgomery-county-could-prioritize-pedestrian-safety

Recently three people were struck by drivers and killed in Montgomery County, illustrating the need for better pedestrian and biker safety. In our first post, we wondered what would happen if the $140 million dollars committed to certain car-centric projects like Montrose Parkway East Parkway were used for other purposes, such as increasing pedestrian safety in White Flint.

In neighboring Forest Glen, pedestrian safety has also been an issue for many years, and yet there has been minimal investment in making the area more walkable. This is especially surprising given the number of public facilities and amenities close to transit along the busy corridor.

Forest Glen is a nice place to live — but pedestrian safety is a big issue

Forest Glen, a census designated area with approximately 6,582 residents over a 1.4 square mile area that is divided by Georgia Avenue on the east and west sides, boasts a Metro stop, a 443-bed regional hospital (Holy Cross), Army base (Walter Reed Forest Glen Annex), and national museum — all within a quarter mile of the Capital Beltway. It is also a short bike ride from this area to several popular parks along Sligo Creek and Rock Creek.

There are also several popular, high-use parks at nearby Evans Parkway which were recently renovated by the county. Many large and active church buildings line Georgia Avenue and are used by multiple, diverse congregations throughout the week. A new health center was also just opened by the county on nearby Dennis Avenue. Furthermore, all of these amenities are actively visited by pedestrians, bike riders, and mass transit users.

The neighborhood is also currently the focus of redevelopment efforts by WMATA, namely the possibility of converting an eight-acre surface parking lot into a mixed-use development with an emphasis on supporting Holy Cross Hospital. For more than two decades, the community has been advocating for constructing a second Metro entrance on the east side of Georgia Avenue so residents would not have to cross an eight-lane highway just to get to the station.

It is particularly dangerous to cross this state road on foot. The lack of a second entrance has also prevented any transit-orientated development (often called TOD) to occur since the construction and opening of the Forest Glen station in 1990.

Proposed Forest Glen East entrance. Image by MCDOT.

In addition, those who live on the other side of the beltway in Forest Glen have to deal with a Georgia Avenue corridor that hasn’t been upgraded since it was first widened several decades ago. Although SHA is currently working on a re-design, many of these projects have been seemingly stuck in funding queues at both the county and state levels for several years, with little or no progress in sight.

A section of Georgia Ave proposed improvements. Image by MD-SHA.

What could the $140 million price tag for the Montrose Parkway East pay for?

With the sector plan consolidation of Forest Glen and Montgomery Hills, the county has an opportunity to use funds in a way that could provide safety measures to over 12,000 residents on a day-to-day basis. This could not only spark smart growth on almost 15 acres of available land but could also make Forest Glen and Montgomery Hills a safer and more walkable community.

In addition, after millions of dollars in investment in White Flint, MoCo also has an opportunity to increase pedestrian safety in a way that enhances the new urban nature of White Flint while protecting its sensitive green spaces. In the support of this endeavor, community advocates have created a petition urging the Montgomery County leadership to take the steps needed to make these pedestrian improvements a reality.

Just like consumers advocated for car safety many years ago, pedestrians and community members alike must stand together to advocate for a better and safer walkable Montgomery County.

About 10 percent of the land in the city of Alexandria is devoted to parking, the result of 50 years of zoning that has required parking whenever new development came along. A lot of parking might not necessarily seem like a bad thing if it were being used, but the study also found that most lots were not even close to full.

The task force members, comprised of residents, developers and city leaders, also surveyed people patronizing businesses in Alexandria. They found that most were not driving their own vehicles to the city's hotels and restaurants, but rather prefer taking transit or using ride hailing like Taxis or Uber. As a result, a lot of parking space owners are leasing out their spots to others.

This reality stands in stark contrast to the current zoning rules, which can require at least one parking spot per table at restaurants and one parking space per room in hotels.

Now the city is considering what to do with this information. Some of the recommendations from the study would include exemptions for small businesses from providing any new parking. That wouldn't be a big change, since most requests to waive parking minimum requirements in projects across the city have already been granted.

Alexandria is just the latest example, but all over the region we're finding that the usual ideas about parking (i.e. we always need more of it) aren't really proving true.

In DC, DDOT is still testing a new parking pilot that raised prices at some parking meters in Gallery Place. While the price jumps grabbed headlines, little attention was paid to the fact that prices actually fell on a number of blocks because the spots were not being used enough.

Another example from DC is the garage at DCUSA. When the stores were built there, decision makers insisted on a big garage to accommodate all the shoppers who would presumably drive to Target or Best Buy. However, the reality turned out to be quite different at both DCUSA and at a number of apartment buildings built in the area. Most residents are renting out their parking spots to others, even if they bothered to purchase a spot at all.

That is also playing out today when it comes to the debate over whether or not DC should finance more parking at Union Market on top of what is already projected. Most parking policies are encouraging more parking to satisfy a shrinking number of people driving to visit places.

Parking problems are usually management problems

All of this may seem bizarre to someone who may regularly find it hard to park in Alexandria today, and large amounts of parking in West End may be cold comfort to someone looking for a spot in Old Town. However, this usually has to do with how parking is managed, rather than actual lack of parking spots.

Unfortunately, much of what drives parking policy is based on conjecture and conventional wisdom, rather than actual evidence. For example, off-street spots are more abundant but can be hard to access because of a lack of information, or because of policies that discourage people from parking and then continuing by foot, bike, or transit.

Competition for on-street spots can be fierce, but that is often because of how the city decides to manage those spots. Often parking spaces would be better put to use to help speed up transit or help provide safe routes for cycling.

Parking concerns can be a deciding factor in whether or not a project is built or stalls somewhere along the approval process. That's frustrating enough as is, but it is even worse when the parking that is built is underused, and the actual causes to an area's parking problems are ignored.

Here's what that means for Alexandria

In Alexandria, that means that projects to make cycling safer might not happen, nor will attempts to turn some blocks of King Street to pedestrian-only. We also lose opportunities for people to live in Alexandria because buildings are shortened and redesigned over parking fears.

What is surprising is not that we have excessive amounts of little-used parking, but that we still have so much trouble doing anything to change that.

The developing trails system—depicted here as of August 2017 and comprising approximately 676 miles of trails—consists of popular, established trails like the Capital Crescent Trail and hundreds of miles of planned trails that will provide greater connectivity and access to trails across the region. The CTC network will evolve over time as trails are added or removed, and as communities refine their local networks.

CTC released the map in September, and while it’s a work in progress that will continue to evolve, it lays out an exciting vision of what our region’s trail network could be.

Trails system as of August 2017. Image by Rails-to-Trails Conservancy and Capital Trails Coalition used with permission.

Here are a few observations:

It would be transformative for Prince George’s County and eastern access to DC

While there are severallongbikehighways connecting Montgomery County and Northern Virginia to DC, there are basically none in Prince George’s County besides the Anacostia Tributary Trail System and Anacostia River Trail, which aren’t nearly as far-reaching.

The CTC network would correct this imbalance. It calls for completing the Washington, Baltimore, and Annapolis Trail to Bowie and the Chesapeake Beach Railway Trail to Upper Marlboro. Plans exist to extend both trails further but CTC’s footprint includes only the DC metropolitan area.

With a network like this, many Prince Georgians would, for the first time, have access to a safe, convenient space for active travel–whether for transportation or recreation.

Trail mileage in Prince George’s County would more than double under the planned network. Image by Capital Trails Coalition used with permission.

It would connect trail-rich but isolated suburbs to the regional network

There are a few places like Bowie, Maryland and Burke, Virginia that already have decent off-street trail networks, but because they don’t connect to other places, they’re used mostly for recreation and local trips. By connecting them to the CTC network, these existing trails would become not just places to take an evening walk, but access points to a region-wide transportation system.

This neighborhood trail in Bowie, MD would get more use if it connected to a complete regional network Image by Google Maps.

It would serve almost every major activity center in the region

The CTC map reflects one of its major trail criteria: connectivity to activity centers like transit stations, parks, and shopping areas. (You can read more about the CTC’s network inclusion criteria here and here.) The map shows new trails to existing centers like Fairfax and National Harbor, but also to areas of planned growth like Suitland Metro, Westphalia, and Addison Road Metro.

It is the result of a coordinated effort by the Capital Trails Coalition and the Rails-to-Trails Conservancy. Together, they defined the network, compiled and reviewed 70 planning documents (all proposed trails already appear in some kind of municipal plan), and gathered and refined separate GIS data from the six municipalities within CTC’s footprint.

These efforts will not only benefit this project, but can provide guidance for future projects. The CTC is one of eight trail networks the Rails-to-Trails Conservancy is working on nationwide as model projects to catalyze the development of more trail networks. The tools, templates, and best practices developed for these projects can simplify the process for others.

You can sign up for updates from the Capital Trails Coalition here. Special thanks to Kelly Pack from the Rails-to-Trails Conservancy for providing information for this post.

Top image: Anacostia River Trail & Kingman Island. Image by Caroline Angelo used with permission.

In Charlottesville this past August, a white supremacist terrorist killed one woman and injured 35 others when he drove his car into a crowd of protesters, and similar attacks have taken place in Barcelona, London, Berlin, and Nice.

Many local urbanists are excited about the possibility of an 18th Street pedestrian zone, and advocate for more walking and biking infrastructure more generally. However, this slew of horrific incidents where terrorists drove vehicles into unprotected people on bike or on foot has sparked the question: How should urbanists respond to this reality? Our contributors weighed in.

David Cranor found the area where the New York terrorist entered the bikeway:

This is where the terrorist in the recent New York bikeway attack entered the trail. Image by Google Maps.

We shouldn't spend extra money to terrorism-proof every trail, but we can probably make them harder to attack (and to accidentally drive on) with some small changes. We probably only need to worry about a few trails, and on those we can design them with planters that create chokepoints at places where a car might enter.

This is where he got on the Greenway. This is a pretty large driveway.

If you put a bollard or some other sort of raised median where the double yellow line median closest to the street is (between West Street and the trail) it would become very difficult for a truck to make that turn. There are already bollards or posts at most of the corners (thought the one on the near right could be positioned better), which is what I was talking about, so not much would need to be moved there. This would also lead to some traffic calming I suspect.

Another alternative would be to add some sort of gateway above the trail. Low enough to not impact people, but high enough to stop a large truck.

Maxime Devilliers says,

Liverpool, England, has done a particularly good job of enabling pedestrian zones at certain hours of the day throughout the city centre without the need of any police intervention and that are fully automated. I really enjoyed them and thought they did not hinder the public space/view shed at all. Jersey barriers and vehicular walls are hideous in comparison.

However, we should not plan for intentional attacks because it simply hinders the public space (see the south side of the White House for example). Terrorists will sadly usually find a way to circumvent protective barriers.

In some cases, such as for street festivals or protests, police park their cars across intersections to make it more difficult to drive a vehicle into the crowd.

Gordon Chaffin says,

Protected bike lanes and pedestrian areas are necessary specifically because they prevent incursion from automobiles.

In the cycling and pro-pedestrian space communities, we are often beggars trying not to be choosers when we get new bike lanes and public space reclaimed from automobile-dominated road spaces. However, we need to be more insistent that design elements incorporate protection measures against cars. The everyday differences in physics (speed, weight, etc.) of car traffic and cycling/walking traffic present far greater dangers than terrorism.

You should build bike lanes. You should build them with raised concrete medians or bollards. You should do so because more people die every day from crashes. If the political will comes more from terrorism, I'm not going to complain. But, parking police cars as temporary barriers isn't a solution to anything.

Payton Chung notes that statistically, terrorist attacks aren't a leading cause of death and injury.

Echoing the helmet debate, many more die from a lack of physical activity. Bikeways lead to more people bicycling, and more people integrating low-impact physical activity into their daily routines–perhaps the easiest way to maintain cardiovascular health. Fewer bikeways means fewer people biking, and more people dying premature deaths due to heart disease or metabolic syndrome.

Patrick Kennedy pointed out that this isn't an all-or-nothing proposition.

You can't fortify every target–but perhaps some bike infrastructure should be prioritized for physical reinforcement based on its prominence and/or the number of users. This particular path in New York is very heavily used and passes through very prominent locations, so it makes sense to me that it be reinforced.

In our area, perhaps you could make the case for the Penn Ave lanes–understanding that all elements have to be removable for the inaugural parade–and maybe the section of 15th Street around where it doglegs near the White House.

On the other hand, most lanes like the one on New Mexico Avenue bike lane probably aren't at risk of becoming a terrorist target–unless some neighbor is still particularly aggrieved over its installation.

Finally, Travis Maiers says:

No question this was a terrible event, and there could be lessons for the future. Unfortunately, we’ll never be able to make our roads 100 percent terror-proof.

Lining every busy sidewalk and bike path with bollards and gates just isn’t feasible. But I do think that many of the design elements of Vision Zero infrastructure, apart from making streets safer for everyone everyday, can help prevent these kinds of events. We should keep working toward that goal.

Top image: Post-it notes at a makeshift memorial for the victims of the June 3, 2017 terrorist attack in London. Image by Algorithms Riven licensed under Creative Commons.

]]>Thu, 21 Mar 2019 17:52:00 +0000Julie Strupp (Managing Editor)A trail next to I-66 isn’t the end of the world, but we could do much betterhttps://ggwash.org/view/65039/a-bike-trail-next-to-i-66-isnt-the-end-of-the-world-but-we-could-do-better
https://ggwash.org/view/65039/a-bike-trail-next-to-i-66-isnt-the-end-of-the-world-but-we-could-do-better

Would a trail right next to I-66 be the worst thing in the world?

GGW Contributor Edward Russell posed that question on October 4, citing San Diego's protected highway-side trail which many cyclists actually like. However, there are some key differences that make the trail being proposed in Virginia much less desirable, leaving me wondering: is it really the only option?

Plans are in the works to build a 16.5-mile-long trail as a part of Transform 66, which will widen the highway. This might be good opportunity to expand trail access across Fairfax County, but recent design changes have cyclists concerned. Now up to five miles of the trail may run directly alongside the highway–a sudden departure from previous plans. Fairfax Advocates for Better Bicycling (FABB) first raised the alarm about the changes, and many local elected officials have since written to the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) asking them to better explain the changes.

A lot of trails have sections that run along highways or rail lines, and sometimes that's necessary. A local example is the Custis Trail in Arlington, which runs along I-66's route and has short sections that nearly hug the shoulder. However, the difference is the sheer length.

VDOT is proposing a five-mile-long section, far more lengthy than San Diego's mile-long trail (which is also a shortcut). That's a long time to be exposed to pollution and debris, which make riding near traffic hazardous. Running next to the highway in part may be a compromise, but running along the highway for nearly a third of the total length is an unreasonable ask.

VDOT changed the plan without telling anyone

I don't know the origins of the plan in San Diego. I don't know what alternatives were floated or if the current trail is the best option, the worst, or somewhere in the middle.

However, along I-66 the original intentions were clear. The drafts of the plan showed the trail running closer to neighborhoods and outside of the sound wall, a barrier that protects pedestrians and bicyclists from noise pollution but can make them feel boxed in. Last month Washcycle noted that the design changes were made without input from the biggest group affected by them: cyclists. Only then did VDOT offer an explanation of why they diverged from their original plans.

From Washcycle: “Maps from June 2016 show the trail (solid green line) outside the sound barrier (green and black line)
But in April 2017, show it (green) inside the noise barrier (blue and black).” Image by Washcycle used with permission.

VDOT then doubled down, arguing it was too late to do anything and even going so far as to blame cyclists for any project delays that may arise.

No bike trail in my backyard?

There's another group pushing for the change: some of the people living along the proposed route. Some feel a trail near their property would be detrimental, citing crime and privacy concerns. However, neither claim holds a lot of water.

Evidence linking trails to crime rate increases is thin. Privacy is a valid concern, but take a trip along the Custis or W&OD trails today and you'll see homeowners making decisions for themselves about how much privacy they feel is necessary.

Both of these houses in Vienna are next to the W&OD trail. Both have their own approaches to privacy and access. Image by the author.

Some houses have fences, while others prefer having the ability to step out immediately onto the trail and enjoy what it has to offer–something that will be impossible if plans for a highway-side trail go forward. People who will live next to the trail deserve to be heard, but their concerns need to be balanced against trail users'.

However, it's hard to compromise when stakeholders don't even know that changes might be made in the first place. Now VDOT can avoid responsibility by pitting concerned homeowners against trail users, rather than taking the opportunity to bring different groups together and find workable solutions.

Having a trail next to the highway is not the worst thing in the world, and it might even be necessary for portions of the I-66 trail. However, it's unclear why that is the option favored now, and why VDOT is arguing the decision has to be finalized immediately. Many local politicians, along with Fairfax County bicycle advocates, feel tricked–myself included. We need VDOT to be clear about how and why it came to the decisions it did, and see if there's a way to do better.

]]>Thu, 21 Mar 2019 17:52:00 +0000Canaan Merchant (Elections Committee)A bike trail next to a busy freeway is better than none in San Diego–and in Centreville?https://ggwash.org/view/64658/a-bike-trail-next-to-a-busy-freeway-is-better-than-no-trail-in-san-diego-and-centreville-virginia
https://ggwash.org/view/64658/a-bike-trail-next-to-a-busy-freeway-is-better-than-no-trail-in-san-diego-and-centreville-virginia

San Diego just opened a new bike trail that has one big similarity to the one planned along I-66 in Centreville: it runs right along a busy freeway.

The SR 15 Bikeway connects Adams Avenue in San Diego's Mid-City neighborhoods–which are atop a hill–with Mission Valley along State Route 15. The roughly 1-mile trail is a much-needed connection in the regional trail network, cutting a roughly 2.4-mile circuitous route on surface streets by more than half, according to Google Maps.

San Diego's new SR 15 Bikeway trail cuts a more than two-mile trip in half. Image by Google Maps.

The the new SR 15 Bikeway in San Diego runs adjacent to the 15 freeway. Image by Brad Walters.

Asked about the trail's proximity to the SR 15 freeway, Walters says:

I don't mind that it's directly adjacent to the freeway; I barely noticed the traffic at all compared to the up-close-and-personal interactions I'm used to when riding on the roads here. Just having the separation is a win; in fact, this is arguably the safest, most comfortable piece of bike infrastructure in the city core right now.

A cyclist climbs the new SR 15 Bikeway in San Diego. Image by Brad Walters.

Better than no trail?

The Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) plans to extend the Custis Trail along I-66 as part of its Transform 66 project. This could create one of the longest trails in the Washington region, up there with the 45-mile long W&OD trail.

The catch? Roughly five miles of the 16.5-mile trail extension will be directly adjacent to traffic on I-66 due to homeowner concerns over a trail in their backyards, The Washington Post has reported.

A multi-use trail next to freeway traffic is far from ideal. For all the reasons already mentioned and others, it would be better to at the very least place the trail on the opposite side of the sound barrier rather than by the highway.

“That would make it more accessible, more safe, more pleasant, and more practical as a transportation connection,” wrote Greater Greater Washington contributor Canaan Merchant on the issue in June.

But, as Walters points out, a good trail connection next to a freeway is better than no trail at all.

Top image: The SR 15 Bikeway connects San Diego's Mid-City neighborhoods to Mission Valley along the shoulder of a freeway. Image by Brad Walters.

This morning, community leaders and advocates will break ground on the Purple Line after three decades of debate and legal battles, some of which are ongoing. Why has the Purple Line kept moving forward? This post from last summer takes a look at why so many people continue to fight for it, from local environmental groups to Governor Hogan.

The Purple Line will be a 16-mile light rail line between Bethesda and New Carrollton. It’ll connect three Metro lines, all three MARC commuter rail lines, and Amtrak, as well as countless local bus routes. It’ll serve two of the region’s biggest job centers, Bethesda and Silver Spring, as well as Maryland’s flagship university. It’ll give Montgomery and Prince George’s counties a fast, reliable alternative to current bus service and Beltway traffic.

The Capital Crescent Trail, which ends two miles outside of Silver Spring, will get fully paved and extended to the Silver Spring Metro station, where it’ll connect to the Metropolitan Branch Trail. The trail will get a new bridge at Connecticut Avenue and new underpasses at Jones Bridge Road, and 16th Street, so trail users won’t have to cross those busy streets.

Wayne Avenue in Silver Spring will get a new trail. Photo by the author.

Streets in other parts of the corridor will get rebuilt with new sidewalks and bike lanes. University Boulevard in Langley Park will get a road diet. Wayne Avenue in Silver Spring will get a new, extended Green Trail.

2) It will let more people live and work near transit more affordably. Metro has its problems, but people still value living in walkable, transit-served neighborhoods. As a result, communities with Metro stations can be very expensive. The Purple Line puts more neighborhoods and more homes near transit, as well as more opportunities to build new homes near transit, helping meet demand and fighting spikes in home prices.

How far you can get by transit from Riverdale today and after the Purple Line is built.

3) It will improve commutes far beyond Bethesda to New Carrollton. The Purple Line will dramatically improve transportation access for people who live or work near one of its 21 stations. But even those whose homes or jobs aren’t near the Purple Line may travel through the corridor, getting a faster, more reliable trip.

Right now, a bus trip between Silver Spring and Bethesda can take 20 minutes at rush hour (though in reality it takes much longer due to traffic). On the Purple Line, that trip would take just nine minutes. That’s a time savings for anyone passing through the Purple Line corridor, like if you were going from Riverdale (which will have a station) to Rock Spring Business Park in Bethesda, which won’t have a station, but you'd save time by taking the Purple Line to Bethesda and switching to a bus, versus taking a bus the whole way as you would today.

4) It’s finally bringing investment to some of our most disadvantaged neighborhoods. Communities like Long Branch, Langley Park, and Riverdale have long awaited the kind of amenities more affluent communities take for granted. When Maryland and the federal government agreed to fund the Purple Line, people took notice. Long Branch businesses formed an association.

While the Purple Line can help meet the demand for transit-served housing, there are real concerns that home prices may still rise, resulting in gentrification and displacement. That’s why residents, business owners, and the University of Maryland partnered on the Purple Line Community Compact, which creates a plan for ensuring that people can afford to stay.

5) We actually don’t know everything the Purple Line will do. Transportation planners can estimate how many people will use a transit line, but we can’t predict how it will affect people’s decisions about where to live, work, shop, or do other things. That’s the most exciting part.

Metro helped revitalize Silver Spring. The Purple Line can do this for more communities. Photo by the author.

]]>Thu, 21 Mar 2019 17:52:00 +0000Dan Reed (Editorial Board)People driving onto trails is a more common problem than it should behttps://ggwash.org/view/63988/people-driving-onto-trails-is-a-more-common-problem-than-it-should-be
https://ggwash.org/view/63988/people-driving-onto-trails-is-a-more-common-problem-than-it-should-be

Trails are usually a great way to avoid car traffic. But sometimes, both by accident and not, drivers end up on them. It's a bizarre problem, but it happens often enough that it is important to remember what to do in case you find yourself facing down a car on the W&OD or the Metropolitan Branch trails.

People driving onto trails in their vehicle is a pretty rare event but not so rare that there aren't usually one examples per year. Most recently we've seen drivers on the Metropolitan Branch Trail in DC and on the Four Mile Run trail in Alexandria.

There's no set reason why people might drive onto trails. In the Four Mile Run case, the Washington Post speculated that it was “to get around rush-hour traffic.” One man who drove onto the W&OD trail back in 2013 did so because he was visiting from Florida and following his GPS too closely. 2013 was a bad year in particular for the W&OD, with one drunk driver terrorizing trail users (and hitting one cyclist) just a month before the Florida man's incident.

But regardless the reason for a car being on the trail, it's almost always extremely dangerous. People rightly don't expect to see any sort of vehicle on a trail (except the occasional maintenance vehicle) and may be caught off guard with no time to recover. Even if someone does spot a vehicle, there may not be any space to get out of the way. In cases where the police have stopped drivers on the trail, the penalties have been severe, and rightfully so.

Fully blocking cars might not be the best solution

When a car does turn up on a trail, a lot of people's first suggestion is to put up bollards or a gate to make it hard for a car or truck to drive onto the trail. It's a popular solution because it seems pretty simple, but the Federal Highway Administration (FWHA) actually recommends bollards onlyafter a “documented history of intrusion” (i.e. drivers that keep messing up). That's because bollards (especially ones that aren't well thought out or poorly designed) can be a big hazard themselves, and they can make it harder for everyone, not just drivers, to access a trail.

Besides, a bollard in the future won't help someone dealing with a driver on the trail today. But when I tried to look up what someone should do in case they spot a car on the trail, I actually didn't see any guidance on what to do if you are on the trail and you happen to see a car heading towards you.

What should you do if you see a car on the trail?

To get some advice I reached out to both the Fairfax County Police Department and the Metropolitan Police Department to ask what they recommend if you find yourself dealing with a driver on the trail (or if somehow, you are that driver). In both cases their advice was nearly the same: make sure you're safe, call 911, and warn others, in that order.

It's simple advice, but it is important to remember and even practice the simple advice before panic sets in. That's why some cyclists like to call out license plate numbers whenever they see bad driving. It may help them in a crash one day.

So if you need to call 911 then remember the license plate number (remember, shouting helps) and the direction the vehicle is traveling. If you can guess at the nearest intersection that may help as well.

Hopefully driving on trails is a problem that will remain rare. But it pays to be prepared. Have you seen a driver on a bicycle or pedestrian trail? What did you do? Tell us your experience and advice in the comments.

Top image: The car somehow ended up on a trail in Pittsburgh. Image by Kordite licensed under Creative Commons.

In Burke, in Fairfax County, there used to be a big gap in the bike trail network. That's no longer the case because a new trail, called the Liberty Bell Trail, opened this past weekend.

Burke is a quiet area of Fairfax County that is suburban and low-density. The only transit in the area is rush hour bus service to DC and the Virginia Railway Express (VRE) commuter rail. The area is, however, criss-crossed by a trail network that a lot of people use.

On the western side of Burke, there's the VRE Trail, and on the eastern side there's the Lake Accontink Trail, which connects to the Cross County Trail (a trail that runs all the way to Great Falls in the northern part of the county). The trouble is that the only direct route connecting them was Burke Road, which has bike lanes on part of it but not on others. Until now, that essentially meant a blockade for anyone who didn't want to bike on a busy road.

But as of Saturday, June 3, the Liberty Bell Trail runs from the VRE Trail to the Burke Road bike lanes. That means a cyclist in Burke can ride from the Burke Centre VRE station to destinations all over Fairfax County and beyond while staying mainly on trails and in bike lanes.

At the ribbon cutting ceremony, which about 30 people attended, Fairfax Park Authority board member Mary Cortina noted that Fairfax County now maintains over 300 miles of trails just in parks. She also mentioned that trails are the number one request that the Parks Board hears from citizens.

The Burke Road entrace to the new trail. Image by the author.

Fairfax Board of Supervisors member Pat Herrity (R-Springfield) emphasized the importance of the new connections that the trails provide, saying there's now a way to make bike trips compete with driving. A lot of people at the ribbon cutting echoed this, saying the new trail would encourage them to bike to more destinations.

State Senator Dave Marsden (D-Burke) actually rode his bike to the ribbon cutting, and he stressed how trails like this can help local residents avoid congestion. Marsden also talked about how small investments like the Liberty Bell Trail fit with bigger projects going on in Fairfax County.

Bigger plans are afoot for Fairfax. The trail runs along Pohick Creek, and the county wants to extend the it through the stream valley six miles to the south to Lorton and the Occoquan River. But for now the community can enjoy this latest link in a long chain of steps to make even the sleepier parts of Fairfax easy to travel without a car.